Appeal No. 2001-2269
Application No. 08/680,266
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985). Our reviewing court also states in In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
that "claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow."
As our reviewing court states, "[T]he terms used in the
claims bear a 'heavy presumption' that they mean what they say
and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those
words by persons skilled in the relevant art." Tex. Digital
Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1201-02, 64 USPQ2d
1812, 1818 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "Moreover, the intrinsic record
also must be examined in every case to determine whether the
presumption of ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted."
(citation omitted). "Indeed, the intrinsic record may show that
the specification uses the words in a manner clearly inconsistent
with the ordinary meaning reflected, for example, in a dictionary
definition. In such a case, the inconsistent dictionary
definition must be rejected." Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. 308 F.3d
at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). ("[A] common
meaning, such as one expressed in a relevant dictionary, that
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007